Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:20:42 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: alfred@FreeBSD.org, <phk@FreeBSD.org>, Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru>, <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Adrian Penisoara <ady@freebsd.ady.ro> Subject: Re: panic:bremfree with today's current and linux-netscape Message-ID: <20020422231049.V8742-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20020422120247.GD68403@madman.nectar.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:25:17PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > I use the same patch. Locking here is essentially equivalent to calling > > panic() here (except it gives a more confusing panic message :-). > > :-) That's a bit of an overstatement; my testing didn't catch it. I Yes; I forgot to write the clause about it only being equivalent to a panic if certain options (mainly INVARIANTS) are configured. > do see that falloc does lock the file descriptor table too, though --- > I wonder how it ever worked. INVARIANTS causes a check of an assertion that non-recursive locks like fd_mtx aren't actually misused recursively. The check causes more panics than the misuse since the misuse is rarely fatal. I may be missing something since I rarely use INVARIANTS and haven't checked that it causes the panic deterministically. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020422231049.V8742-100000>